Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>> At least if we think it's more than a very narrow legitimate use, compared
> >>> to the number of ppl making the mistake.
> >
> >> Did we ever come to a conclusion on this or not? I've changed my patch
> >> per the suggestions in the thread, but I've held back on committing it
> >> to hear arguments... Go or no-go?
> >
> > I'm inclined to vote no-go on the message. AFAIR we've only heard the
> > one complaint about this, so I'm not convinced there's a lot of people
> > making such a mistake. We did make the logic change to deal with the
> > underlying problem of a misleading error message after you'd done it,
> > and I think that might be enough.
>
> Ok. I'm dropping it for now. If someone wants it later, the patch is in
> the archives...
Indulge me while I say that it's pretty useless there. The archiver
mangles it pretty badly -- I have never found a patch you could actually
use in the archives (or on Bruce's queues for that matter). What I have
had to do was log into the majordomo page and have it send the email to
me.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.